"Forcible Rape" Language Remains In GOP Anti-Abortion Bill

February 09, 2011 10:53 am ET —
Kate Conway

Last week, we heard that Republicans had caved to pressure and agreed to remove the insidious "forcible rape" language
from their anti-choice H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." Yesterday,
however, the New York Times reported
that the bill had proceeded to a hearing before a House Judiciary subcommittee with the "forcible rape" language still in tow:

The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher
H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts
a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the
case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the
definition of rape to "forcible rape," a term that his office has never
defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying
it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get
abortions paid for with federal money.

While Mr. Smith's staff said last
week that the term "forcible rape" would be removed from the bill,
the staff of Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, said that language remained intact
as of Tuesday.

Redefining
rape to exclude cases in which the woman was drugged or a minor is already
inexcusable to all but the most strident anti-abortion activists, but law
professor Sara Rosenbaum points out that since H.R. 3 goes after abortion coverage via the tax code,
it could mean that the IRS ends up being the agency that decides which rapes
count.

"We're
going to need the Internal Revenue Service to define a rape,"
she testified, "potentially a forcible rape, incest; potentially incest
involving minors; as opposed to incest not involving minors; physical
conditions endangering life, and physical conditions that don't endanger life."
This from a party that purportedly wants the government to stay away from
interactions between patients and their doctors.

Yet
even if Rep. Smith got around to removing the "forcible" language from the
bill, H.R. 3 still constitutes government interference
with private health care that goes far beyond current
legislation. As Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) explains,
"It tells women they can't use their private money
to purchase insurance that covers a full range of health care. It punishes
women and businesses with a tax hike — a tax hike — if they wish to keep or buy
insurance that covers the full range of reproductive health care."